wow! That brings back some bad memories from the fall and winter of 2001. Holy cow were people willing to do absolutely anything to kill Muslims back then. These Rand folk are very emotional, they aren't objective, and not using logic. Iran, Really? wow! just wow!

Thank goodness for antiwar.com otherwise there would be a lot manufactured consent.

also O'riely actually sounded like a really decent human being in that (relatively speaking)...another WOW!

Like Chris R. above said mises.org. But please also read antiwar.com, I also love Scott Horton's pod casts on antiwar.com/radio.

As bad as you all think Peikoff is, his point on self defense is valid. If we are indeed under attack or a credible threat exists (I mean for real, not government propaganda) then Peikoff's idea of war is the correct one. Go in, beat the crap out of the enemy with full force and no mercy, and end the war as quickly as possible. Ron Paul agrees with this to the best of my knowledge.

The only difference of opinion is, is there a credible threat to the physical security of the country? He thinks yes, you all seem to think no. That's it really.

"The only difference of opinion is, is there a credible threat to the physical security of the country? He thinks yes, you all seem to think no. That's it really."

That's a mighty big difference when the Randian in question believes the state's propaganda as if he's never even considered the possibility that it's just propaganda.

And that is the problem with objectivism. Ultimately, their logical reasoning stops dead in its tracks once the nature of the state (e.g. its monopoly on force) becomes the topic, when with libertarians, the nature of the state is the very core issue to begin with.

Imagine that there would be no state with its monopoly on force (which is a main staple of objectivism, otherwise they'd think we're just savages). Then there would be no foreign policy that has caused all the blow back. There would be no taxation for the funding of military industrial complex (which needs war to justify its size and existence), there would be no monopoly on force and no monopoly on the availability of information. There would be "collectivization" of guilt or responsibility among the population for the actions of those with said monopoly. I could go on and on.

The whole distinction between Peikoff and a lot of us is so large because he believes in the rightful existence of the VERY ROOT CAUSE of all modern threats to America.

Saying there is only one difference of opinion between Peikoff and us, is like saying there is only one difference of opinion between a rapist and innocent people, about how you expect rape victims to respond, and what you should be allowed to as rapists do to retaliate against rape victims.

Your point is interesting. I don't like labeling myself as an "objectivist" or "libertarian" or any prepackaged set of beliefs as it were. I do believe in the monopoly of force, but I also believe it should not be used willy nilly like peikoff wants. Does that put me somewhere in the middle? Who knows.

Amspirnational - I assume you live in the United States, in which case you're a theiver of much more land than I am, and my people were given Israel by the creator of the world, and my nation is much older than a mere 236 years. We beat you by thousands. Your people were not given America. You stole it from the native Americans and stuck them on reservations against their will to run casinos in shame.

And I am not fine with Peikoff. I'm merely explaining the disagreement in a more fine tuned way.

So, Rafi, might makes right, and possession is nine tenths of the law. It's the current occupiers of Palestine claiming the moral high ground that irks me and other reasonable people. You're a genocidal fascist; just own it and get on with the ethnic cleansing. Signed, SheikhYerbouti.

One of the big problems Goldwater had with his campaign was the bellicosity of his foreign policy statements. Even back then, the Randians took much the same the same attitude as this guy. While some Goldwater supporters would defend him as being misrepresented by the media or guilty of hyperbole, the Randians would defend his most rash statements and take it a step further just like this guy.

But at least back then, the threat from the Soviet Union was credible. The idea that Iran represents a threat to the US is just laguhbable.

Thanks for rebroadcasting it. I couldn't watch it a second time as I saw it years ago. Check out ARI Watch, they regularly refute ARI's insane foreign policy from an Objectivist viewpoint which references Rand's opposition to US entry into WW2 and strong anti-Zionist themes.My boyfriend heard Rand denounce US foreign policy in October 1966 in DC at the opening NBI Lectures as "imperialistic going back to 1898."We tried to point this out to a Randroid named James Valliant but he wouldn't take it in.

The trouble with the Peikoffian Objectivists, if I may coin a term, is that they seem to think that the right to self-defense and retaliation exempt one from the need to distinguish between one's victimizer and the innocent person standing next to him.

This premise is so obviously indefensible one wonders how any rational individual with a moral conscience could possibly endorse it.

One is tempted to conclude that those who in fact endorse the a premise are quite literally insane.